738:
if you look at them you will not see something common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look! Look for example at board games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost. Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear. And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.
942:
are warm and cuddly but fish cannot be. Fish are often eaten for dinner, but pets are never. Hence the conjunctive prototype fails to inherit features of either concept that are incompatible with the other concept. A final stage in the process looks for knowledge of the class in long term memory, and if the class is familiar may add extra features - a process called "extensional feedback". The model was tested by showing how apparently logical syntactic conjunctions or disjunctions, such as "A sport which is also a game" or "Vehicles that are not
Machines", or "Fruits or Vegetables" fail to conform to Boolean set logic. Chess is considered to be a sport which is a game, but is not considered to be a sport. Mushrooms are considered to be either a fruit or a vegetable, but when asked separately very few people consider them to be a vegetable and no-one considers them to be a fruit.
580:. These features may or may not be true of all members of the class (necessary or defining features), but they will all be associated with being a typical member or the class. By this means, two aspects of concept structure can be explained. Some exemplars are more typical of a category than others, because they are a better fit to the concept prototype, having more of the features. Importantly, Hampton's prototype model explains the vagueness that can occur at the boundary of conceptual categories. While some may think of pictures, telephones or cookers as atypical furniture, others will say they are not furniture at all. Membership of a category can be a matter of degree, and the same features that give rise to typicality structure are also responsible for graded degrees of category membership.
902:, have suggested problems with the prototype theory. In their 1999 paper, they raise several issues. One of which is that prototype theory does not intrinsically guarantee graded categorization. When subjects were asked to rank how well certain members exemplify the category, they rated some members above others. For example, robins were seen as being "birdier" than ostriches, but when asked whether these categories are "all-or-nothing" or have fuzzier boundaries, the subjects stated that they were defined, "all-or-nothing" categories. Laurence and Margolis concluded that "prototype structure has no implication for whether subjects represent a category as being graded" (p. 33).
557:
conditions are those that no other entity possesses. Rather than defining concepts by features, the prototype theory defines categories based on either a specific artifact of that category or by a set of entities within the category that represent a prototypical member. The prototype of a category can be understood in lay terms by the object or member of a class most often associated with that class. The prototype is the center of the class, with all other members moving progressively further from the prototype, which leads to the gradation of categories. Every member of the class is not equally central in human cognition. As in the example of
911:
25:
713:
classified based on similarity to stored prototypes and stored exemplars, whereas participants who only had experience with exemplar only relied on the similarity to stored exemplars. Smith and Minda looked at the use of prototypes and exemplars in dot-pattern category learning. They found that participants used more prototypes than they used exemplars, with the prototypes being the center of the category, and exemplars surrounding it.
612:— a chair is associated with bending of one's knees, a fruit with picking it up and putting it in your mouth, etc. At the subordinate level (e.g. , etc.) few significant features can be added to that of the basic level; whereas at the superordinate level, these conceptual similarities are hard to pinpoint. A picture of a chair is easy to draw (or visualize), but drawing furniture would be more difficult.
941:
James
Hampton found that prototypes for conjunctive concepts such as pet fish are produced by a compositional function operating on the features of each concept. Initially all features of each concept are added to the prototype of the conjunction. There is then a consistency check - for example pets
737:
Consider for example the proceedings that we call 'games'. I mean board games, card games, ball games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? Don't say, "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games'"--but look and see whether there is anything common to all. For
712:
A common comparison is the use of prototype or the use of exemplars in category classification. Medin, Altom, and Murphy found that using a mixture of prototype and exemplar information, participants were more accurately able to judge categories. Participants who were presented with prototype values
945:
Antonio Lieto and Gian Luca
Pozzato have proposed a typicality-based compositional logic (TCL) that is able to account for both complex human-like concept combinations (like the PET-FISH problem) and conceptual blending. Their framework shows how concepts expressed as prototypes can account for the
615:
Psychologists
Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn Mervis and colleagues defined the basic level as that level that has the highest degree of cue validity and category validity. Thus, a category like may have a prototypical member, but no cognitive visual representation. On the other hand, basic categories in ,
850:
Mikulincer, Mario & Paz, Dov & Kedem, Perry focused on the dynamic nature of prototypes and how represented semantic categories actually changes due to emotional states. The 4 part study assessed the relationships between situational stress and trait anxiety and the way people organize the
747:
describes the phenomenon when people group concepts based on a series of overlapping features, rather than by one feature which exists throughout all members of the category. For example, basketball and baseball share the use of a ball, and baseball and chess share the feature of a winner, etc.,
697:
Subsequent to Rosch's work, prototype effects have been investigated widely in areas such as colour cognition, and also for more abstract notions: subjects may be asked, e.g. "to what degree is this narrative an instance of telling a lie?". Similar work has been done on actions (verbs like look,
556:
Rosch and others developed prototype theory as a response to, and radical departure from, the classical theory of concepts, which defines concepts by necessary and sufficient conditions. Necessary conditions refers to the set of features every instance of a concept must present, and sufficient
639:
However, the notion of Basic-ness as a Level can be problematic. Linguistically, types of bird (swallow, robin, gull) are basic level - they have mono-morphemic nouns, which fall under the superordinate BIRD, and have subordinates expressed by noun phrases (herring gull, male robin). Yet in
553:'s study "Natural Categories", was initially defined as denoting a stimulus, which takes a salient position in the formation of a category, due to the fact that it is the first stimulus to be associated with that category. Rosch later defined it as the most central member of a category.
810:), one encounters the question of whether or not the prototype of is a 6 foot tall man, or a 400-foot skyscraper. The solution emerges by contextualizing the notion of prototype in terms of the object being modified. This extends even more radically in compounds such as
654:
While one may differ from this list in terms of cultural specifics, the point is that such a graded categorization is likely to be present in all cultures. Further evidence that some members of a category are more privileged than others came from experiments involving:
2069:
851:
hierarchical level at which semantic stimuli are categorized, the way people categorize natural objects, the narrowing of the breadth of categories and the proneness to use less inclusive levels of categorization instead of more inclusive ones.
640:
psychological terms, bird behaves as a basic level term. At the same time, atypical birds such as ostrich and penguin are themselves basic level terms, having very distinct outlines and not sharing obvious parts with other birds.
623:
Clearly semantic models based on attribute-value pairs fail to identify privileged levels in the hierarchy. Functionally, it is thought that basic level categories are a decomposition of the world into maximally
643:
More problems arise when the notion of a prototype is applied to lexical categories other than the noun. Verbs, for example, seem to defy a clear prototype: is hard to split up in more or less central members.
569:. Contrary to the classical view, prototypes and gradations lead to an understanding of category membership not as an all-or-nothing approach, but as more of a web of interlocking categories which overlap.
748:
rather than one defining feature of "games". Therefore, there is a distance between focal, or prototypical members of the category, and those that continue outwards from them, linked by shared features.
1967:
Gatsgeb, H.Z., Dundas, E.M., Minshew, M.J., & Strauss, M.S. (2012). Category formation in autism: Can individuals with autism form categories and prototypes of dot patterns?.
1852:
Lieto, Antonio; Pozzato, Gian Luca (2020). "A description logic framework for commonsense conceptual combination integrating typicality, probabilities and cognitive heuristics".
1448:
Medin, Douglas L.; Altom, Mark W.; Murphy, Timothy D. (1984). "Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification".
458:, in which there is a graded degree of belonging to a conceptual category, and some members are more central than others. It emerged in 1971 with the work of psychologist
914:
A guppy is not a prototype pet, nor a prototype fish, but it is a prototype pet-fish. This challenges the idea that prototypes are created from their constituent parts.
759:, where a category is defined in terms of a conceptual distance. More central members of a category are "between" the peripheral members. He postulates that most
647:
In her 1975 paper, Rosch asked 200 American college students to rate, on a scale of 1 to 7, whether they regarded certain items as good examples of the category
1937:
Dirven, R. & Taylor, J.R. (1988): "The conceptualisation of vertical Space in
English: The Case of Tall", pp. 379-402 in Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.),
651:. These items ranged from chair and sofa, ranked number 1, to a love seat (number 10), to a lamp (number 31), all the way to a telephone, ranked number 60.
882:
Douglas L. Medin and
Marguerite M. Schaffer showed by experiment that a context theory of classification which derives concepts purely from exemplars (cf.
2080:
1918:
2111:
Mikulincer, Mario & Kedem-Friedrich, Peri & Paz, Dov. (1990). Anxiety and categorization—1. The structure and boundaries of mental categories.
2097:
Mikulincer, Mario, Kedem, Peri & Paz, Dov (1990), "The impact of trait anxiety and situational stress on the categorization of natural objects",
2182:, E., "Classification of Real-World Objects: Origins and Representations in Cognition", pp. 212–222 in Johnson-Laird, P.N. & Wason, P.C.,
2032:
674:: When primed with the higher-level (superordinate) category, subjects were faster in identifying if two words are the same. Thus, after flashing
1233:
2148:
2129:
Mikulincer, Mario & Paz, Dov & Kedem-Friedrich, Peri. (1990). Anxiety and categorization—2. Hierarchical levels of mental categories.
725:'s (later) discomfort with the traditional notion of category. This influential theory has resulted in a view of semantic components more as
488:
in any given language has a real world example that best represents this concept. For example: when asked to give an example of the concept
1825:
Hampton, James A. (1988). "Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion".
1082:
Rosch, Eleanor; Mervis, Carolyn B; Gray, Wayne D; Johnson, David M; Boyes-Braem, Penny (July 1976). "Basic objects in natural categories".
822:
in the prototypical sense, but the red indicates merely a shift from the prototypical colour of wine or hair respectively. The addition of
521:
In formulating prototype theory, Rosch drew in part from previous insights in particular the formulation of a category model based on
2049:
A description logic framework for commonsense conceptual combination integrating typicality, probabilities and cognitive heuristics
1930:
327:
2290:
572:
Further development of prototype theory by psychologist James
Hampton, and others replaced the notion of prototypes being the
2042:
2023:
1946:
1271:
1185:
230:
430:
2070:
Spreading
Activation Within Semantic Categories: Comments on Rosch’s “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories”
1547:
2232:, E., "Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The Two Systems", pp. 73–86 in Scholnick, E.K. (ed),
755:
has elaborated a possible partial explanation of prototype theory in terms of multi-dimensional feature spaces called
2333:
1647:
1572:
1432:
1218:
990:
225:
68:
46:
39:
1951:
1329:
Collier, George A.; Berlin, Brent; Kay, Paul (March 1973). "Basic Color Terms: Their
Universality and Evolution".
2374:
2359:
362:
162:
806:
These combinations pose a lesser problem in terms of prototype theory. In situations involving adjectives (e.g.
2369:
2162:
763:
categories exhibit a convexity in conceptual space, in that if x and y are elements of a category, and if z is
94:
2002:
1739:; Lepore, Ernest (February 1996). "The red herring and the pet fish: why concepts still can't be prototypes".
791:
is to be defined as the set of objects having this property. This does not apply as well to modifiers such as
2011:
1685:
Osherson, Daniel N.; Smith, Edward E. (1981). "On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts".
980:
2323:
301:
2081:
Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification
2364:
2282:, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P., "Basic Objects in Natural Categories",
899:
834:
The prototype is changed by additional specific information, and combines features from the prototype of
702:
470:. It has been criticized by those that still endorse the traditional theory of categories, like linguist
934:
might be trout or salmon. However, the features of these prototypes do not present in the prototype for
2349:
1671:
530:
955:
2048:
1096:
620:
and semantic features. Basic level categories tend to have the same parts and recognizable images.
608:
in cognitive categorization. Basic categories are relatively homogeneous in terms of sensory-motor
220:
99:
33:
1211:
Categories, prototypes and exemplars, in
Routledge Handbook of Semantics, Ed. N.Riemer, pp.125-141
2262:, E. & Mervis, C.B., "Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories",
995:
467:
423:
384:
379:
121:
1596:
Medin, Douglas L.; Schaffer, Marguerite M. (1978). "Context theory of classification learning".
1091:
860:
347:
203:
172:
50:
938:, therefore this prototype must be generated from something other than its constituent parts.
784:
588:
584:
463:
455:
357:
342:
140:
2291:
Distinguishing prototype-based and exemplar-based processes in dot-pattern category learning
2222:, E., "Principles of Categorization", pp. 27–48 in Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B.B. (eds),
1871:
1000:
868:
729:
rather than necessary contributors to the meaning of texts. His discussion on the category
475:
247:
145:
693:: When asked to name a few exemplars, the more prototypical items came up more frequently.
8:
2318:
1415:
Geeraerts, Dirk; Dirven, René; Taylor, John R.; Langacker, Ronald W., eds. (2001-01-31).
910:
722:
332:
267:
130:
1982:
1875:
752:
2354:
1887:
1861:
1772:
1718:
1665:
1621:
1397:
1354:
1277:
1263:
1158:
1109:
970:
960:
744:
625:
616:
i.e. , , , are full of informational content and can easily be categorized in terms of
522:
416:
2329:
2142:
2124:
2038:
2019:
1942:
1807:
1764:
1756:
1752:
1710:
1702:
1698:
1653:
1643:
1613:
1578:
1568:
1543:
1520:
1512:
1473:
1465:
1428:
1389:
1372:
Coleman, Linda; Kay, Paul (March 1981). "Prototype Semantics: The English Word Lie".
1346:
1311:
1267:
1214:
1191:
1181:
1150:
1145:
1128:
1105:
1064:
1060:
451:
337:
257:
126:
2276:, Language Behaviour Research Laboratory, University of California (Berkeley), 1975.
1891:
1776:
1722:
1625:
1281:
2302:
2170:
2138:
2120:
2102:
2088:
2065:
2056:
1990:
1972:
1958:
1879:
1834:
1799:
1748:
1694:
1605:
1504:
1492:
1457:
1420:
1381:
1338:
1303:
1259:
1140:
1113:
1101:
1056:
895:
756:
322:
262:
252:
193:
167:
2060:
1883:
1925:
965:
883:
864:
471:
2306:
1508:
1307:
591:
also have a prototype structure, like categories of common words in a language.
2092:
1790:
Hampton, James A. (1987). "Inheritance of attributes in concept conjunctions".
1642:. Margolis, Eric, 1968-, Laurence, Stephen. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1999.
1609:
1461:
985:
447:
352:
272:
185:
2174:
2106:
1994:
1976:
1838:
2343:
2279:
2269:
2259:
2249:
2239:
2229:
2219:
2209:
2199:
2189:
2179:
2028:
1760:
1706:
1617:
1582:
1516:
1469:
1393:
1350:
1315:
1195:
1154:
1068:
550:
459:
285:
1657:
1495:(2005). "Category Representation for Classification and Feature Inference".
1251:
1981:
Gatsgeb, H.Z., Wilkinson, D.A., Minshew, M.J., & Strauss, M.S. (2011).
1909:
1524:
1294:
Rosch, Eleanor (1975). "Cognitive representations of semantic categories".
706:
526:
280:
198:
16:
Theory of categorization based upon degrees of similarity to a central case
1811:
1768:
1714:
1477:
1424:
1736:
886:) worked better than a class of theories that included prototype theory.
507:
466:" in the theory of categorization for its departure from the traditional
404:
2034:
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind
632:
maximize the number of attributes shared by members of the category, and
2234:
New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory?
1803:
1162:
975:
617:
609:
576:
exemplar, with the proposal that a prototype is a bundle of correlated
134:
1401:
1358:
1954:
Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
859:
Prototype theory has been criticized by those that still endorse the
515:
511:
490:
84:
2163:
When prototypes are not best: Judgments made by children with autism
1962:
946:
phenomenon of prototypical compositionality in concept combination.
2295:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
2085:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
1913:
1866:
1827:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
1497:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
1450:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
1385:
1342:
871:
667:) elicited faster response times than for non-prototypical members.
502:
478:
399:
2272:, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P.,
775:
Within language we find instances of combined categories, such as
701:
Another aspect in which Prototype Theory departs from traditional
1983:
Can individuals with autism abstract prototypes of natural faces?
485:
2053:
Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
1854:
Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
1565:
Geometry of meaning : semantics based on conceptual spaces
1129:"On the Prototype Theory of Concepts and the Definition of Art"
1414:
635:
minimize the number of attributes shared with other categories
2246:, Vol.6, Nos.11-12, (November/December 1999), pp. 61–77.
2226:, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, (Hillsdale), 1978.
2149:
The Prototype Effect in Recognition Memory: Intact in Autism?
923:
496:
2161:
Molesworth, C.J., Bowler, D.M., & Hampton, J.A. (2008).
2147:
Molesworth, C.J., Bowler, D.M., & Hampton, J.A. (2005).
2202:, E., "Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories",
1238:
Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory
767:
x and y, then z is also likely to belong to the category.
2274:
Basic Objects in Natural Categories, Working Paper No.43
663:: in which queries involving prototypical members (e.g.
709:
categories (bird, dog) vs. artifacts (toys, vehicles).
1081:
1047:
Rosch, Eleanor H. (1973-05-01). "Natural categories".
2079:
Medin, D.L., Altom, M.W., & Murphy, T.D. (1984).
926:
kept in a bowl in someone's house. The prototype for
918:
Daniel Osherson and Edward Smith raised the issue of
2256:, Vol.104, No.3, (September 1975), pp. 241–243.
2206:, Vol.104, No.3, (September 1975), pp. 192–233.
1417:
Applied Cognitive Linguistics, II, Language Pedagogy
604:
The other notion related to prototypes is that of a
2076:, Vol.104, No.3, (September 1975), p. 234-240.
1919:
Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution
1678:
698:kill, speak, walk ), adjectives like "tall", etc.
1589:
1208:
845:
2341:
2266:, Vol.7, No.4, (October 1975), pp. 573–605.
2186:, Cambridge University Press, (Cambridge), 1977.
1941:, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
1490:
1447:
1328:
2236:, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1983.
1175:
1931:Structural Semantics and 'Cognitive' Semantics
2286:, Vol.8, No.3, (July 1976), pp. 382–439.
1999:
1684:
1595:
1562:
1020:
1018:
1016:
930:might be a dog or cat, and the prototype for
721: The notion of prototypes is related to
424:
1851:
1537:
1227:
716:
506:. Prototype theory has also been applied in
2254:Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
2204:Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
2192:, E. (1975): “Cognitive Reference Points”,
2167:Journal of Autism and Development Disorders
2074:Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
1987:Journal of Autism and Development Disorders
1969:Journal of Autism and Development Disorders
1735:
1296:Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
1133:The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
1027:
540:
2152:Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
2018:(pp. 176-179). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2003:Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought
1371:
1013:
431:
417:
1928:, Willems, K. & Leuschner, T. (2000)
1865:
1144:
1095:
783:. Combining categories was a problem for
599:
69:Learn how and when to remove this message
2289:Smith, J.D., & Minda, J.P. (2002). "
2036:, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press.
1952:Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits.
909:
889:
787:, where the semantics of a word such as
32:This article includes a list of general
2184:Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science
1824:
1789:
1126:
770:
2342:
2131:Personality and Individual Differences
2113:Personality and Individual Differences
500:is more frequently cited than, say, a
2212:, E.H. (1973): "Natural categories",
2016:MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science
1293:
1249:
1046:
826:shifts the prototype from the one of
905:
484:In this prototype theory, any given
18:
922:for which the prototype might be a
13:
2047:Lieto, A., Pozzato, G.L. (2019): "
1264:10.1016/b978-1-4832-1446-7.50028-5
877:
705:is that there do not appear to be
462:, and it has been described as a "
38:it lacks sufficient corresponding
14:
2386:
991:Semantic feature-comparison model
454:, particularly in psychology and
2244:Journal of Consciousness Studies
1146:10.1111/j.0021-8529.2005.00203.x
23:
2326:(Philosophische Untersuchungen)
1939:Topics in Cognitive Linguistics
1845:
1818:
1783:
1729:
1632:
1556:
1531:
1484:
1441:
1408:
1365:
1322:
1287:
2328:, Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
1258:, Elsevier, pp. 312–322,
1252:"Principles of Categorization"
1243:
1202:
1169:
1120:
1075:
1040:
846:Dynamic structure and distance
682:is detected more rapidly than
510:, as part of the mapping from
1:
2242:, E., "Reclaiming Concepts",
2061:10.1080/0952813X.2019.1672799
1902:
1884:10.1080/0952813X.2019.1672799
1640:Concepts : core readings
1538:Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953).
1256:Readings in Cognitive Science
594:
549:, as defined in psychologist
2324:Philosophical Investigations
2224:Cognition and Categorization
2143:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90190-3
2125:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90189-X
1753:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00694-x
1699:10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5
1567:. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1540:Philosophical Investigations
1106:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
1061:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0
1006:
867:and other proponents of the
861:classic theory of categories
535:How shall a thing be called?
474:and other proponents of the
7:
2307:10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1433
1509:10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1433
1308:10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
949:
854:
703:Aristotelian categorization
10:
2391:
2315:, Oxford University Press.
2093:10.1037/0278-7393.10.3.333
1610:10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.207
1462:10.1037/0278-7393.10.3.333
1209:Hampton, James A. (2016).
363:Predicate transformational
2313:Linguistic Categorization
2252:, E., "Reply to Loftus",
2175:10.1007/s10803-008-0557-7
2107:10.1080/08917779008249328
1995:10.1007/s10803-011-1190-4
1977:10.1007/s10803-011-1411-x
1839:10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.12
1178:Linguistic categorization
799:is very different from a
743:Wittgenstein's theory of
733:is particularly incisive:
717:Distance between concepts
1542:. Blackwell Publishing.
1176:Taylor, John R. (2009).
1127:Adajian, Thomas (2005).
587:it has been argued that
541:Overview and terminology
2010:Hampton, J.A. (1999). "
2000:Gärdenfors, P. (2004):
1934:, in Logos and Language
1250:Rosch, Eleanor (1988),
1033:Croft and Cruse (2004)
996:Similarity (philosophy)
628:categories. Thus, they
468:Aristotelian categories
385:Abstract semantic graph
380:Abstract interpretation
53:more precise citations.
2375:Philosophy of language
2360:Psychological theories
1792:Memory & Cognition
1670:: CS1 maint: others (
1180:. Oxford Univ. Press.
915:
741:
600:Basic level categories
512:phonological structure
204:Theory of descriptions
173:Context (language use)
2370:Cognitive linguistics
1989:, 41(12), 1609–1618.
1425:10.1515/9783110866254
1035:Cognitive Linguistics
956:Composite photography
913:
894:Linguists, including
890:Graded categorization
785:extensional semantics
735:
678:, the equivalence of
589:linguistic categories
585:Cognitive linguistics
565:is more central than
464:Copernican Revolution
456:cognitive linguistics
304:programming languages
2311:Taylor, J.R.(2003):
2284:Cognitive Psychology
2264:Cognitive Psychology
2214:Cognitive Psychology
2194:Cognitive Psychology
2169:, 38(9), 1721–1730.
1971:, 42(8), 1694–1704.
1956:, Vol.8, pp.132–142.
1598:Psychological Review
1240:, 2nd ed., ch.2 p.21
1084:Cognitive Psychology
1049:Cognitive Psychology
1001:Intuitive statistics
869:structural semantics
771:Combining categories
476:structural semantics
248:Semantic file system
1876:2020JETAI..32..769L
1563:Gärdenfors, Peter.
1491:Johansen, Mark K.;
268:Semantic similarity
2365:Semantic relations
2087:, 10(3), 333–352.
1804:10.3758/BF03197712
971:Family resemblance
961:Composite portrait
916:
745:family resemblance
523:family resemblance
2350:Cognitive science
2043:978-0-2264-6804-4
2024:978-0-2622-3200-5
1947:978-9-0272-3544-2
1493:Kruschke, John K.
1273:978-1-4832-1446-7
1187:978-0-19-926664-7
906:Compound concepts
818:which are hardly
757:conceptual spaces
665:is a robin a bird
452:cognitive science
441:
440:
392:
391:
296:
295:
258:Semantic matching
79:
78:
71:
2382:
2319:Wittgenstein, L.
2301:(4), 1433–1458.
2099:Anxiety Research
2007:
1896:
1895:
1869:
1849:
1843:
1842:
1822:
1816:
1815:
1787:
1781:
1780:
1733:
1727:
1726:
1682:
1676:
1675:
1669:
1661:
1636:
1630:
1629:
1593:
1587:
1586:
1560:
1554:
1553:
1535:
1529:
1528:
1503:(6): 1433–1458.
1488:
1482:
1481:
1445:
1439:
1438:
1412:
1406:
1405:
1369:
1363:
1362:
1326:
1320:
1319:
1291:
1285:
1284:
1247:
1241:
1231:
1225:
1224:
1206:
1200:
1199:
1173:
1167:
1166:
1148:
1124:
1118:
1117:
1099:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1044:
1038:
1031:
1025:
1022:
896:Stephen Laurence
863:, like linguist
753:Peter Gärdenfors
444:Prototype theory
433:
426:
419:
311:
310:
263:Semantic parsing
253:Semantic desktop
231:Machine-learning
194:Semantic feature
181:Prototype theory
168:Compositionality
110:
109:
81:
80:
74:
67:
63:
60:
54:
49:this article by
40:inline citations
27:
26:
19:
2390:
2389:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2101:, 2:2, 85–101.
1963:10.2307/2841021
1905:
1900:
1899:
1850:
1846:
1823:
1819:
1788:
1784:
1734:
1730:
1683:
1679:
1663:
1662:
1650:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1594:
1590:
1575:
1561:
1557:
1550:
1536:
1532:
1489:
1485:
1446:
1442:
1435:
1413:
1409:
1370:
1366:
1327:
1323:
1292:
1288:
1274:
1248:
1244:
1232:
1228:
1221:
1207:
1203:
1188:
1174:
1170:
1125:
1121:
1097:10.1.1.149.3392
1080:
1076:
1045:
1041:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1014:
1009:
981:Frame semantics
966:Exemplar theory
952:
908:
892:
884:exemplar theory
880:
878:Exemplar theory
865:Eugenio Coseriu
857:
848:
773:
739:
719:
602:
597:
543:
529:(1953), and by
472:Eugenio Coseriu
446:is a theory of
437:
367:
303:
290:
235:
190:
150:
104:
75:
64:
58:
55:
45:Please help to
44:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2388:
2378:
2377:
2372:
2367:
2362:
2357:
2352:
2337:
2336:
2316:
2309:
2287:
2277:
2267:
2257:
2247:
2237:
2227:
2217:
2207:
2197:
2187:
2177:
2159:
2145:
2127:
2109:
2095:
2077:
2063:
2045:
2026:
2008:
1997:
1979:
1965:
1949:
1935:
1923:
1906:
1904:
1901:
1898:
1897:
1860:(5): 769–804.
1844:
1817:
1782:
1747:(2): 253–270.
1728:
1677:
1648:
1631:
1604:(3): 207–238.
1588:
1573:
1555:
1549:978-1405159289
1548:
1530:
1483:
1456:(3): 333–352.
1440:
1433:
1407:
1386:10.2307/414285
1364:
1343:10.2307/412128
1321:
1302:(3): 192–233.
1286:
1272:
1242:
1226:
1219:
1201:
1186:
1168:
1139:(3): 231–236.
1119:
1090:(3): 382–439.
1074:
1055:(3): 328–350.
1039:
1026:
1024:Coșeriu (2000)
1011:
1010:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1003:
998:
993:
988:
986:Platonic ideal
983:
978:
973:
968:
963:
958:
951:
948:
907:
904:
891:
888:
879:
876:
856:
853:
847:
844:
801:small elephant
781:small elephant
772:
769:
718:
715:
695:
694:
687:
668:
661:Response Times
637:
636:
633:
601:
598:
596:
593:
542:
539:
448:categorization
439:
438:
436:
435:
428:
421:
413:
410:
409:
408:
407:
402:
394:
393:
390:
389:
388:
387:
382:
374:
373:
369:
368:
366:
365:
360:
355:
350:
345:
340:
335:
330:
325:
319:
316:
315:
307:
306:
298:
297:
294:
293:
292:
291:
289:
288:
283:
277:
275:
273:Semantic query
270:
265:
260:
255:
250:
242:
241:
237:
236:
234:
233:
228:
223:
217:
214:
213:
209:
208:
207:
206:
201:
196:
191:
189:
188:
186:Force dynamics
183:
177:
175:
170:
165:
157:
156:
152:
151:
149:
148:
143:
138:
124:
118:
115:
114:
106:
105:
103:
102:
97:
91:
88:
87:
77:
76:
31:
29:
22:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2387:
2376:
2373:
2371:
2368:
2366:
2363:
2361:
2358:
2356:
2353:
2351:
2348:
2347:
2345:
2335:
2334:0-631-23127-7
2331:
2327:
2325:
2320:
2317:
2314:
2310:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2285:
2281:
2278:
2275:
2271:
2268:
2265:
2261:
2258:
2255:
2251:
2248:
2245:
2241:
2238:
2235:
2231:
2228:
2225:
2221:
2218:
2215:
2211:
2208:
2205:
2201:
2198:
2195:
2191:
2188:
2185:
2181:
2178:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2157:
2153:
2150:
2146:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2064:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2044:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2030:
2027:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2004:
1998:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1964:
1960:
1957:
1955:
1950:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1927:
1924:
1921:
1920:
1915:
1911:
1908:
1907:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1868:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1848:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1821:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1786:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1732:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1681:
1673:
1667:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1649:0-262-13353-9
1645:
1641:
1635:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1592:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1574:0-262-31958-6
1570:
1566:
1559:
1551:
1545:
1541:
1534:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1487:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1444:
1436:
1434:9783110866254
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1411:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1368:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1325:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1290:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1246:
1239:
1235:
1234:John R Taylor
1230:
1222:
1220:9780367867591
1216:
1213:. Routledge.
1212:
1205:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1183:
1179:
1172:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1123:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1078:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1043:
1037:ch.4 pp.74-77
1036:
1030:
1021:
1019:
1017:
1012:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
987:
984:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
954:
953:
947:
943:
939:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
912:
903:
901:
900:Eric Margolis
898:writing with
897:
887:
885:
875:
873:
870:
866:
862:
852:
843:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
804:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
768:
766:
762:
758:
754:
749:
746:
740:
734:
732:
728:
724:
714:
710:
708:
704:
699:
692:
688:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
652:
650:
645:
641:
634:
631:
630:
629:
627:
621:
619:
613:
611:
607:
592:
590:
586:
581:
579:
575:
570:
568:
564:
560:
554:
552:
551:Eleanor Rosch
548:
538:
536:
532:
528:
524:
519:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
499:
498:
493:
492:
487:
482:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:Eleanor Rosch
457:
453:
449:
445:
434:
429:
427:
422:
420:
415:
414:
412:
411:
406:
403:
401:
398:
397:
396:
395:
386:
383:
381:
378:
377:
376:
375:
371:
370:
364:
361:
359:
356:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
320:
318:
317:
313:
312:
309:
308:
305:
300:
299:
287:
286:Semantic wiki
284:
282:
279:
278:
276:
274:
271:
269:
266:
264:
261:
259:
256:
254:
251:
249:
246:
245:
244:
243:
239:
238:
232:
229:
227:
226:Computational
224:
222:
219:
218:
216:
215:
211:
210:
205:
202:
200:
197:
195:
192:
187:
184:
182:
179:
178:
176:
174:
171:
169:
166:
164:
161:
160:
159:
158:
154:
153:
147:
144:
142:
139:
136:
132:
128:
125:
123:
122:Computational
120:
119:
117:
116:
112:
111:
108:
107:
101:
98:
96:
93:
92:
90:
89:
86:
83:
82:
73:
70:
62:
52:
48:
42:
41:
35:
30:
21:
20:
2322:
2312:
2298:
2294:
2283:
2273:
2263:
2253:
2243:
2233:
2223:
2213:
2203:
2193:
2183:
2166:
2155:
2151:
2134:
2130:
2116:
2112:
2098:
2084:
2073:
2052:
2033:
2015:
2006:, MIT Press.
2001:
1986:
1968:
1953:
1938:
1929:
1917:
1857:
1853:
1847:
1830:
1826:
1820:
1798:(1): 55–71.
1795:
1791:
1785:
1744:
1740:
1737:Fodor, Jerry
1731:
1693:(1): 35–58.
1690:
1686:
1680:
1639:
1634:
1601:
1597:
1591:
1564:
1558:
1539:
1533:
1500:
1496:
1486:
1453:
1449:
1443:
1416:
1410:
1377:
1373:
1367:
1334:
1330:
1324:
1299:
1295:
1289:
1255:
1245:
1237:
1229:
1210:
1204:
1177:
1171:
1136:
1132:
1122:
1087:
1083:
1077:
1052:
1048:
1042:
1034:
1029:
944:
940:
935:
931:
927:
919:
917:
893:
881:
858:
849:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
805:
800:
796:
792:
788:
780:
776:
774:
764:
760:
750:
742:
736:
730:
726:
723:Wittgenstein
720:
711:
707:natural kind
700:
696:
690:
683:
679:
675:
671:
664:
660:
653:
648:
646:
642:
638:
622:
614:
605:
603:
582:
577:
574:most typical
573:
571:
566:
562:
558:
555:
546:
544:
534:
527:Wittgenstein
520:
501:
495:
489:
483:
443:
442:
348:Denotational
302:Semantics of
281:Semantic Web
240:Applications
199:Semantic gap
180:
65:
56:
37:
2216:4, 328–350.
2196:7, 532–547.
2137:, 815–821.
2119:, 805–814.
1926:Coseriu, E.
1922:, Berkeley.
830:to that of
797:small mouse
684:stove-stove
680:chair-chair
626:informative
610:affordances
606:basic level
531:Roger Brown
508:linguistics
405:Linguistics
358:Operational
343:Concurrency
338:Categorical
141:Statistical
59:August 2015
51:introducing
2344:Categories
2158:, 496-497.
2029:Lakoff, G.
1910:Berlin, B.
1903:References
1867:1811.02366
1337:(1): 245.
976:Folksonomy
751:Recently,
595:Categories
146:Structural
135:lexicology
95:Linguistic
34:references
2355:Semantics
2068:, E.F., "
1761:0010-0277
1741:Cognition
1707:0010-0277
1687:Cognition
1666:cite book
1618:0033-295X
1583:881289030
1517:1939-1285
1470:1939-1285
1394:0097-8507
1380:(1): 26.
1351:0097-8507
1316:0096-3445
1196:553516096
1155:0021-8529
1092:CiteSeerX
1069:0010-0285
1007:Footnotes
832:red hair.
691:Exemplars
676:furniture
649:furniture
559:furniture
547:prototype
545:The term
516:semantics
491:furniture
333:Axiomatic
328:Algebraic
113:Subfields
85:Semantics
2031:(1987),
2012:Concepts
1916:(1969):
1892:53224988
1833:: 2–32.
1777:15356470
1723:10482356
1658:40256159
1626:27148249
1525:16393056
1374:Language
1331:Language
1282:15633758
950:See also
936:pet fish
920:pet fish
872:paradigm
855:Critique
816:red hair
812:red wine
777:tall man
727:possible
578:features
567:wardrobe
537:(1958).
503:wardrobe
479:paradigm
400:Language
212:Analysis
163:Analysis
1914:Kay, P.
1872:Bibcode
1812:3821491
1769:8820389
1715:7196818
1478:6235306
1236:(1995)
1163:3700527
1114:5612467
765:between
761:natural
672:Priming
618:Gestalt
561:above,
486:concept
127:Lexical
100:Logical
47:improve
2332:
2066:Loftus
2041:
2022:
1945:
1912:&
1890:
1810:
1775:
1767:
1759:
1721:
1713:
1705:
1656:
1646:
1624:
1616:
1581:
1571:
1546:
1523:
1515:
1476:
1468:
1431:
1402:414285
1400:
1392:
1359:412128
1357:
1349:
1314:
1280:
1270:
1217:
1194:
1184:
1161:
1153:
1112:
1094:
1067:
372:Theory
323:Action
221:Latent
155:Topics
36:, but
2280:Rosch
2270:Rosch
2260:Rosch
2250:Rosch
2240:Rosch
2230:Rosch
2220:Rosch
2210:Rosch
2200:Rosch
2190:Rosch
2180:Rosch
1888:S2CID
1862:arXiv
1773:S2CID
1719:S2CID
1622:S2CID
1398:JSTOR
1355:JSTOR
1278:S2CID
1159:JSTOR
1110:S2CID
924:guppy
793:small
563:couch
497:couch
314:Types
131:lexis
2330:ISBN
2039:ISBN
2020:ISBN
1943:ISBN
1808:PMID
1765:PMID
1757:ISSN
1711:PMID
1703:ISSN
1672:link
1654:OCLC
1644:ISBN
1614:ISSN
1579:OCLC
1569:ISBN
1544:ISBN
1521:PMID
1513:ISSN
1474:PMID
1466:ISSN
1429:ISBN
1390:ISSN
1347:ISSN
1312:ISSN
1268:ISBN
1215:ISBN
1192:OCLC
1182:ISBN
1151:ISSN
1065:ISSN
932:fish
840:wine
838:and
828:hair
808:tall
795:; a
731:game
494:, a
353:Game
2303:doi
2293:",
2171:doi
2139:doi
2121:doi
2103:doi
2089:doi
2072:",
2057:doi
2051:",
2014:".
1991:doi
1973:doi
1959:doi
1880:doi
1835:doi
1800:doi
1749:doi
1695:doi
1606:doi
1505:doi
1458:doi
1421:doi
1382:doi
1339:doi
1304:doi
1300:104
1260:doi
1141:doi
1102:doi
1057:doi
928:pet
836:red
824:red
820:red
814:or
789:red
779:or
689:3.
670:2.
659:1.
583:In
533:'s
525:by
514:to
450:in
2346::
2321:,
2299:28
2297:,
2165:.
2156:46
2154:,
2135:11
2133:,
2117:11
2115:.
2083:.
2055:.
1985:.
1886:.
1878:.
1870:.
1858:32
1856:.
1831:14
1829:.
1806:.
1796:15
1794:.
1771:.
1763:.
1755:.
1745:58
1743:.
1717:.
1709:.
1701:.
1689:.
1668:}}
1664:{{
1652:.
1620:.
1612:.
1602:85
1600:.
1577:.
1519:.
1511:.
1501:31
1499:.
1472:.
1464:.
1454:10
1452:.
1427:.
1419:.
1396:.
1388:.
1378:57
1376:.
1353:.
1345:.
1335:49
1333:.
1310:.
1298:.
1276:,
1266:,
1254:,
1190:.
1157:.
1149:.
1137:63
1135:.
1131:.
1108:.
1100:.
1086:.
1063:.
1051:.
1015:^
874:.
842:.
803:.
518:.
481:.
133:,
2305::
2173::
2141::
2123::
2105::
2091::
2059::
1993::
1975::
1961::
1894:.
1882::
1874::
1864::
1841:.
1837::
1814:.
1802::
1779:.
1751::
1725:.
1697::
1691:9
1674:)
1660:.
1628:.
1608::
1585:.
1552:.
1527:.
1507::
1480:.
1460::
1437:.
1423::
1404:.
1384::
1361:.
1341::
1318:.
1306::
1262::
1223:.
1198:.
1165:.
1143::
1116:.
1104::
1088:8
1071:.
1059::
1053:4
686:.
432:e
425:t
418:v
137:)
129:(
72:)
66:(
61:)
57:(
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.